[quote=Traiori]20km or 40km, the time it takes a dread to warp off a hole and back to the hole remains the same. All the issues that we've brought up previously are still problematic, so I'll bring them up again on behalf of the community:

1) [b]Rage rolling becomes much more annoying for large groups[/b]. This limits their ability to find content that they can take, whether it be site-runners to kill (which you *have* to rage-roll for, incidentally) or other large groups. The proposed change slows down chain-rolling, slowing down the speed at which content can be found. This also has the side effect of making farming safer, because the probability being rolled into whilst running sites comes down to how many holes can be opened whilst your caps are not in their POS. Less holes=less chance of dying to everyone else.

2)[b] Rage rolling becomes essentially impossible for small groups[/b]. They also have to find content, and rolling the chain is often the only way to reliably find content of interest - whether that be PvP or PvE or anything else. The proposed changes stop you from being able to do this without fighting the larger groups... which you can't do because numbers are important in every case. Small groups can no longer rage-roll consistently, especially given that most larger groups will seed scouts into their chain.

3) [b]Committing capitals to wormholes outside of home systems requires winning the fight or losing the cap[/b]... which in turn means that it won't be committed by anyone that hasn't already got the forces on-grid to win it. The proposed change ensures that capitals shoved into another wormhole can't get back into home system. Whereas we currently see Triage used to balance out fights against bigger entities, smaller entities can't afford to lose the triage carrier every time, so they'll just stop bringing them. Less fights is bad for everyone.

4) [b]Using our capitals in nullsec (and arguably losec) means losing them[/b]. We're not stupid. The proposed change would strand our capitals 15-20km away from the hole. The fight would become a race against time: will they be able to form up capitals/supercapitals to kill our triage archon before we get it back into the hole? In most cases, the answer will be no. Power projection means that we can no longer commit capitals. It's bad enough at present, without increasing the scope of the problem. Once again, less fights is bad for everyone.

5) [b]Sub-capital wormholes also suffer from the problem because orcas land far away too[/b]. The major difference between rolling C4 wormholes and C5 wormholes is that C4 wormholes use Orcas. If those orcas are guaranteed to be in danger, they're also guaranteed to die. We'll take orca kills any time of the day. So will other groups. This means that C4 groups also need to be fielding support fleets for their orca if they don't fancy losing them daily. Bad for small groups, which means they'll leave, which means we lose more groups and hence, lose content.


The error here is the belief that all groups can afford to field support groups. We can't. We aren't 10000 man coalitions, because wormholes can't support that kind of lifestyle. There is a maximum limit to how many people can fit into a wormhole, and unless we're now expecting all pilots to be on all of the time, that means that this change will make smaller groups increasingly unfeasible.

I originally made most of these points on a reddit post here: http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2cro9k/where_are_the_devblogs/cjihkl9. Some inital discussion over it can also be found.


EDIT: A better solution would be to invert the numbers:[b] have distance landed be proportional to a function of mass and speed[/b], making it so that lighter and faster ships landing further away from the hole. This would allow us to use kiting HACs as well as brawling T3s.

EDIT 2: In the interest of clarifying my suggested change, I propose that distance landed from the hole should be [b]inversely proportional to mass[b] (higher mass=close) and [/b] directly proportional to maximum speed[/b] (higher maximum speed = further away).[/quote]

[quote=Lamhoofd Hashur]Besides the points noted before by Traiori I would like to point out two other (maybe unintended) side effects.

1. Using multiple carriers in any fight will become useless. The goal of having multiple carriers is most of the times to have the ability to refit of each other and thus become more versatile. Similar to this sometimes carriers are brought in to support dreads so they can refit as well.

By causing capitals to be far apart from each other this gameplay is (mostly) taken away from the group who jumps into the other one. The 'defender' has the time to setup their caps in the way they want.  Thus resulting in a benefit for camping the WH until the other guys jump in, even more then currently is the case already.

2. Using multiple dreads will become more powerful. Since dreads are not cluttered together anymore they (in general) will be able to shoot subcaps better, since you will be unable to lower your angular for multiple dreads at the same time. [/quote]

[quote=ExookiZ]The biggest issue with this change I see is you are adding work/time to rolling a wormhole, which is something many of us do 10s, maybe even 100 times a day.

I completely understand that your intention is to make rolling the WH "riskier" and " require more support" But in reality 99% of the times we are rolling our wormholes is because its dead/empty/undesirable. Were getting rid of it because it doesn't have content, so we can go find content. All this change does is make it take longer and require more effort to go FIND content.

I hate my targets rolling the WH on them as much as the next guy, but this is honestly going to hamper hunters more than them. Hunters are the ones constantly churning through whs looking for targets. With the K162 appearance change theyll be rolling even fewer WHs than ever.[/quote]

[quote=Von Keigai]I'll reiterate the criticism I already posted in the other thread.

Currently, a significant part of the danger in moving many kinds of ships in wspace is that when you jump, you may not be able to immediately cloak.  2000m is the "decloak distance", the distance at which an object prevents cloaking.  Wormholes are objects.  Usually you land further from the wormhole than 2000m, but often (~20%?), you land closer.  If you land closer, there is the opportunity for an enemy to lock you before you can get far enough to cloak.

The risk of not being able to cloak is particularly significant for ships with covert ops cloaks, because once cloaked they can warp.  It is nearly impossible to stop one of them without a bubble.  Even with a bubble, because they can move at full speed they will usually escape.  (And of course T3 scouts will be interdiction nullified.)

Assuming I am correctly understanding the numbers in the dev blog, after Hyperion [b]no ship that jumps a wormhole will ever land closer than 2000m from the wormhole[/b].  In fact, even the lightest ships always land at least 3500m from it.  Thus, all covert ships will be essentially uncatchable by anything but a bubble.  Indeed, all ships will be far enough from the wormhole that they no longer need to worry about the geometry when they warp, because their align cannot take them within decloak distance.

This will affect my play, because currently I do try to catch scouts on wormholes in a Manticore from time to time.  I know the chance is not large; in fact I have not actually caught one yet who was paying attention.  Still, the chance is there.  And I did catch a blockade runner once who got screwed by the RNG.  If I knew there was zero chance that covert ships would ever be within the decloak distance, I would not bother to hunt them.

This change would make hunting in a cloaky ship less risky, but I don't agree with that either.  Every time I come out 1600m from the wormhole is a tiny scare, and each time I survive it is a tiny victory.[/quote]

[quote=Ann Markson]The main cause of "Danger" In wormholes is that they are well connected and those connections are unpredictable, while on the same time the reason they fit small groups so well is that they are extremely flexible, which is a very important niche in the time of  Powerblocks and super escalations.

With the new way k162 appear people are a lot less safer when farming, as every dedicated fleet can then roll, form and jump into the hole in anticipation of some NPC farming to hop onto.

However noone will be interested in rolling anymore, as it keeps a high risk and makes you very vulnerable, especially when having a wh->low or wh->null connection.

With the propsed changes most wh groups will end up with waiting for their static to roll itself and either have luck and do something out of it, or log off for the next day, which should absolutely not be ccps intention.

Also when there is a big group->small group connection the small group has no chance of doing anything until that changes as the big group that has activity in all timezones will camp the wh for anyone trying to close it early, at worst getting bored and shooting towers to tickle some pvp they wont get. At the end of this process another group will have left W-Space, and W-Space will more or less fastly face the same issues of power blocks and projection like null faces as of know, which are a major concern to most of the playerbase.

If the target is to create a better pvp meta around kiting/long range, then having it reverse way, so basically smaller ships can spawn further away, while bigger will be closer to the wormhole they just went through. This will give leightwieght kiters a chance to get away, while keeping the overall wh pvp healthy.

This is written from a small WH groups perspective, not from the 500 character corps point of view, so i hope i defended the small groups point of view here.
[/quote]

[quote=Gallosek]From the article, the stated design drivers are:

[quote]This change is intended to ensure that all attempts to control the local wormhole environment are open to risk of player disruption. We are not satisfied with how easy and safe it is to close wormholes that could potentially allow other players to interact with W-space operations, as the risk of player interaction should always be the main source of tension and danger in W-space.[/quote]

Meaning that CCP wants to stop the safety of collapsing yourself in. This mechanic does allow groups (especially small ones)to operate significantly more safely, and the proposed change does appear make it more dangerous for them.  This sort of player is going to want to avoid combat regardless though, so they will probably choose to "make do with bubbles and scouts", which is only avoided as it is more annoying... however it is still fairly effective at the stated aim of "doing sites with minimal risk".  In the very early days of wormholes this was a normal mode of operation, especially while pilots were mostly sub-capital and orcas were rare/expensive.

However I believe this underestimates the effect the "quick roll" mechanic has on another play style. Those who actively *seek* combat roll wormholes.  This is an emergent mechanic which disrupts the above "mitigation" as well as any other defensive wormhole collapsing mechanic.  Nothing about your own ability to collapse a wormhole can prepare you for an incoming connection with an interdictor (short of being bait with a fleet larger than any that may jump in).

I believe the proposed change to jump distance fails to meet the stated design goal whilst inadvertently making it SAFER for those who wish to avoid combat as it is less likely they will have a hostile gang appear from a previously uncharted wormhole connection.

The random "frigate" only wormholes are a far better counter to "complete safety" as it makes it easier to inject scouts into a system in which you can then stage a fleet in for later action.[/quote]